 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign
| To: | <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:38:33 +0000 |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:36:33 -0800 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Is it intentional that these two both use PG_arch_1? It seems at least risky to me... And if intended, it would certainly deserve a comment. (I was about to utilize PG_pinned for indicating pinned highmem-allocated PTEs when I realized this collision.) Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH][RFC] dump-core: PFN-GMFN table and ELF formatify (was Re: [Xen-devel] xc_get_pfn_list() creates broken core files), Isaku Yamahata |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign, Keir Fraser |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH][RFC] dump-core: PFN-GMFN table and ELF formatify (was Re: [Xen-devel] xc_get_pfn_list() creates broken core files), Isaku Yamahata |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] Linux: PG_pinned vs. PG_foreign, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
